c^ 


PERKINS  LIBRARY 

Uuke   University 


Kare   Dooks 


1903 


Oift  of  Dr.  and  Mrs.  Drcd  Peacock 


^:/T^'^%«-    -^^x-A^iiJ^-ak-, 


Otryy^ 


Ate-    C4iyt^y\-c4\J     P-PT^^ce^/n*^      yl-   X<-v^ 


/TT'^^K^ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Arciiive 
in  2011  with  funding  from 
Duke.  University  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/reportofcommitteOOmeth 


REPORT 


OF 


THE  COMMITTEE 


SOUTH-CAROLINA  CONFERENCE, 


asss^agsoi&a^i?  isiS'isjg^^iS'^js.  ^sgwrn^ssa 


ON  THE  SUBJECT  OF  THE 


SCHISM  IN  CHARLESTON, 


WITH  THE 


ACCOMPANYING  DOCUMENTS. 


PUBLISHED  BY  ORDER  OF  THE  CONFERENCE. 


PRINTED  BY  J.  S.  SURGES,    18  BROAD-ST. 
1835. 


EXTRACT  OF  THE  JOURNAL 

OF  THE 

SOUTH-CAROLBI^A  CO]\FERE]^CE, 

FOR  THE  YEAR  1885. 


Feb.  11. — Immediately  after  the  appointment  of  the  usual  Committees, 
it  was,  on  motion  of  W.  Capers  and  W.  M.  Kennedy,  Resolved,  That  a 
Committee  of  five  be  appointed,  to  investigate  the  subject  of  the  late  Sehism 
in  Charleston,  and  report  whether  or  not  any  act  of  this  Conference  is  call- 
ed for  on  that  account. 

Samuel  Dunwody,  Malcom  McPherson,  Hartwell  Spain,  Daniel  G. 
McDaniel,  and  Robert  Adams,  were  appointed  that  Committee. 

Feb.  16. — Brother  Dunwody,  trom  the  Committee  on  the  Charleston 
affairs,  presented  a  Report,  after  the  reading  o{  which,  and  sereral  docu- 
ments  accompanying  it,  the  hour  of  adjournment  having  afrired.  Confer- 
ence adjourned. 

Feb.  17. — Bishop  Andrew  made  some  statements  in  reference  to  his 
connexion  with  the  affairs  of  the  Church  in  Charleston,  and  the  Report  of 
the  Committee  was  then  unanimously  adopted. 

It  was  farther  Resolved,  That  the  Report,  and  accompanying  documents 
be  published.  The  Preachers  to  be  appointed  to  Charleston  were  fixed  on 
as  a  Committee  to  publish,  and  5000  copies,  with  the  "  Rejoinder"  append- 
ed, ordered  to  be  printed. 

The  above  is  a  true  extract  of  the  Journal  of  Conference. 

(Signed)  W.  M.  WIGHTMAN,  Secretary. 


REPORT, 

The  Committee  appointed  to  investigate  tlic  causes  which  led  to  the  late 
Schism  in  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston,  and  to  report 
whether  or  not  any  act  of  the  present  Annual  Conference  is  called  for  on 
that  account.  Reports  as  follows: 

After  having  attentively  considered  the  various  documents  put  into  its 
possession,  your  Committee  is  decidedly  of  opinion  that  the  following  mat- 
ters  of  fact  are  true: 

At  a  Quarterly  Meeting  in  Charleston,  August  30,  1833,  the  following 
Resolutions  were  passed:     1st.  That  the  Gallery  is  the  only  proj)cr  place 


lor  the  Slaves  in  our  Churcliei^;  and  that  the  Trustees  be  requested  to  re- 
move the  boxes  on  the  lower  floor  and  place  benches  there  with  a  railing  up 
the  centre  aisle  for  the  use  of  free  persons  of  color.  2.  That  it  is  expo- 
dient  there  should  be  a  small  gate  cut  on  each  side  of  the  large  gate  lead- 
ing into  Bethel  yard,  on  a  line  with  the  gallery  doors,  for  the  use  of  colored 
persons  entering  the  Church.  And  also  that  a  paling  fence  be  erected  in 
all  our  yards,  leading  from  each  side  gate  to  the  Church.  3.  That  a  Com- 
mittee be  appointed  to  commuiiicate  the  foregoing  Resolutions  to  the  Board 
of  Trustees,  and  request  their  immediate  action  upon  them;  and  in  case  the 
Trustees  are  unable  to  do  so  for  want  of  funds,  the  Committee  be  instructed 
to  raise  a  subscription  for  that  purpose. 

Agreeably  to  the  above  Resolutions  a  Meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees 
was  speedily  called,  but  from  the  short  notice  given,  there  happened  not  to 
be  a  quorum  present,  and  of  course  no  business  could  be  done.  A  free 
conversation  however  took  place  concerning  the  Resolutions  of  the  Quar- 
terly Conference,  and  the  general  opinion  seemed  to  be  that  they  were  mi- 
fortunate,  and  had  better  not  be  carried  into  effect.  To  this  opinion  the 
Members  of  the  Committee  themselves  did  not  object.  So  far,  brotherly 
love  seemed  to  prevail,  and  not  the  least  evil  consequence  could  reasonably 
have  been  anticipated.  The  scene  however  was  quickly  changed,  as  will 
appear  in  the  sequel.  In  the  next  Society  Meeting,  Rev.  William  Capers, 
the  Preacher  in  Charge,  having  slightly  alluded  to  the  subject  of  the  re- 
moval of  the  boxes,  took  occasion  to  inculcate  the  propriety  of  Christian 
charity  towards  our  colored  members,  especially  those  who  gave  evidence 
of  sincere  piety,  and  were  otherwise  respectable  in  their  stations.  These 
remarks,  though  uttered  in  pastoral  faithf\dne8s  and  affection,  gave  offence 
to  several  persons,  an  evidence  of  which  soon  appeared  in  a  letter  addressed 
to  brother  Capers,  charging  the  Trustees  with  wilt'ul  iiogligence  in  failing 
to  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Board,  and  peremptorily  re(juiring  brother  Ca- 
pers as  Chairman  of  the  Board,  to  call  another  Meeting,  to  ascertain,  as 
they  said,  whether  the  wishes  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  should  be  com- 
plied with,  or  not.  Your  Committee  is  of  opinion  that  at  this  stage  of  the 
business,  brother  Capers  took  the  wisest  and  most  inoflensive  course  he 
could,  in  promptly  resigning  his  office  as  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Trus- 
tees, which  he  and  his  predecessors  had  held  from  courtesy,  and  not  by  any 
requirement  of  the  Discipline.  This  was  certainly  a  peaceable  measure, 
and  well  calculated  to  refute  what  his  opponents  have  charged  him  with, 
namely,  a  love  of  power.  The  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Conference, 
however,  were  not  so  easily  satisfied.  They  shortly  af)er  addressed  an- 
other letter  to  brother  Capers,  the  evident  design  of  which  was  to  compel 
him  to  call  another  Meeting  of  the  Trustees,  to  carry  into  effect  the  Resolu- 
tions of  the  Quarterly  Conference.  And  to  ensure  success,  they  drew  up  a 
paper  approving  those  resolutions,  and  procured  to  it  a  large  number  of  sig- 
natures consisting  of  men,  women,  boys  and  girls,  who  were  here  represent- 
ed as  authorismg  the  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Ccfnfercnce  to  carry  the 
Resolutions  into  effect  if  the  Trustees  refused  to  do  so.  Here  your  Com- 
mittee have  no  hesitation  to  avow  their  belief  that  the  Committee  of  the 
Quarterly  Conference  acted  inconsistently  with  the  Discipline;  and  exceed- 
ed their  own  instructions,  which  sent  them  to  the  Trustees  and  not  to  the 
membership  in  general. 

The  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Conference,  finding  they  could  not  pro- 
<Tnrea  meeting  of  the  Board  of  Trustees  through  brother  Capers,  who  had 


resigned  his  relation  to  the  Boaril,  addressed  themselves  to  the  Trustees  in 
another  manner,  and  procured  a  meeting  of  the  Board  on  the  19th  Septem- 
ber,  1833.  At  this  meeting  a  resolution  was  passed  expressing  the  willing, 
ness  of  the  Board  to  fultil  the  wishes  of  the  Quarterly  Conference,  but  for 
reasons  given,  refjucstuig  a  suspension  of  thr  proposed  alteration  of  (he  sit- 
tings  in  the  Churches.  At  another  meetuigoftho  Board  (on  the  10th  Oc- 
tober following,)  the  Trustees  declared  their  co-iviction  that  the  proposed 
alterations  would  injure  and  not  promote  the  welfare  of  the  Church:  but  still, 
that  to  promote  peace  and  avoid  collisioii  with  the  Committee  of  the  Quar- 
terly Confci'cnce,  that  Committee  should  be  at  liberty  to  carry  the  proposed 
alterations  into  effect,  and  should  be  put  in  possession  of  the  keys  of  the 
Churches  for  that  purpose,  if  they  still  insisted  on  it.  As  the  Trustees  had 
now  substantially  yielded  to  the  Committee,  even  against  their  own  convic- 
tions of  the  inexpediency  of  doing  what  was  proposed  to  be  done,  it  might 
have  been  reasonably  expected  that  no  farther  disturbance  would  take 
place.  This,  however,  was  not  the  case,  and  it  soon  became  evident  that 
an  organised  opposition  to  the  constituted  authorities  of  the  Church  had 
been  formed,  and  which  aimed  at  nothing  less  than  the  entire  subversion  of 
the  Methodist  Discipline.  And  here  it  may  be  proper  to  take  notice  of  the 
silence  of  the  expelled  and  seceding  party,  in  their  published  exposition  of 
the  matter,  as  to  that  resolution  of  the  Board  of  Trustees,  above  mentioned, 
which  authorised  the  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  to  make  the 
alterations  about  which  they  were  raising  so  much  clamor.  There  can  be 
but  one  reason  assigned  for  this  otherwise  unaccountable  silence;  and  that 
is,  a  wilful  design  to  keep  the  people  in  the  dark  as  to  the  real  motives  of 
their  conduct.  It  is  true  that  they  ask  the  question  in  their  ''Rejoinder," 
"Does  he  [Dr.  Capers]  not  know  that  this  resolution  was  a  mere  feint? 
What  authority  had  the  Committee  to  make  alterations  in  the  Churches? 
Had  the  Quarterly  Confere:ice  appointed  them  to  have  the  work  done?" 
Now  there  were  three  resolutions  passed  by  the  Board  of  Trustees  at  the 
sainc  time,  the  first  and  second  of  which  were  published  by  the  seccders,  and 
the  third  wholly  left  out  of  their  publication.  Why  did  they  publish  the 
two,  and  not  the  third?  If  the  third  resolution  was  a  mere  feint,  was  it  not 
as  likely  the  first  and  second  were  also  mere  feints?  Why  then  take  two 
out  of  three  of  the  resolutions  and  publish  them  as  the  whole?  The  reason 
is  obvious:  it  would  not  have  suited  their  purpose  to  publish  the  third  Reso- 
lution, because  in  that  Resolution  the  Trustees  granted  in  substance  the  ve- 
ry thing  for  which  the  Committee  of  the  Quarterly  Conference  was  con- 
tending; and  this  thing  (the  alterations. in  the  sittings)  was  not  their  real  ob- 
ject, but,  as  will  appear  in  the  sequel,  they  were  only  drumming  on  that  to 
muster  a  party  for  something  else.  But  if  the  Committee  of  the  Quarterly 
Conference  were  really  scrupulous  about  exceeding  their  instructions  in 
one  respect,  why  were  they  not  equally  so  in  another?  If  they  held  them- 
selves  unauthorised  to  effectuate  the  changes  proposed  in  the  Churches, 
even  after  the  Trustees  had  authorised  them,  why  had  they  gone  about  to 
get  such  a  number  of  signatures  to  a  paper  cxpresslj'  to  authorise  them  to  do 
the  same  thing  whether  the  Trustees  would  or  not?  But  when  they  had 
thus  procured  authority  among  the  members,  old  and  young,  male  and  fe- 
■  male,  to  make  the  proposed  alterations,  and  the  Trustees  had  given  their 
consent  that  the  work  might  be  done,  why  did  they  forbear  to  act,  in  a  case 
which  they  themselves  had  so  long  and  loudly  declared  to  be  of  such  vast 
importance  to  the  Church?     Obviously,  because  they  had  another  object  in 


view.  Again,  il"  the  white  i/mlt  members  of  the  Church  only,  could  com- 
pose the  corponilc  body  lo  traiis.act  the  (cinpoi;il  business  ol' the  Church, 
why  then  sohcjt  the  signatures  ot'not  only  men,  but  womeu,  boys,  and  girls, 
to  authorise  the  alterations  in  the  Churches?  We  leave  them  to  reconcile 
their  inconsistencies  as  they  can. 

As  an  evidence  that  the  removal  of  the  boxes  was  not  the  main  thing 
the  opposition  party  had  in  view,  i)eacc  was  tar  from  being  restored  to  the 
Church  by  the  Trustees  givuig  their  consent  that  the  work  might  be  done. 
On  the  contrary,  the  agitation  increased,  and  on  the  29ih  October  follow, 
ing,  a  meeting  of  the  opposition  parly  was  held  at  Trinity  School  Room,  at 
which  it  was  resolved,  that  a  Comnnftee  be  appointed  to  procure  a  meeting 
of  the  Church  in  its  corporate  cajiacit},  and  to  take  such  measures  as  should 
be  eftectual  towards  that  object.  This  Resolution  was  conveyed  to  the 
Preacher  in  Charge,  with  a  request  that  he  would  call  a  meeting.  The 
Presiding  Elder,  Rev.  Henry  Bass,  being  th'en  in  the  city,  he  and  the  other 
Preachers  on  the  station  were  consulted  as  to  what  was  best  to  be  done; 
and  it  was  concluded  to  be  inexpcdieut  to  call  ^.corporate  meeting,  but  de- 
sirable  to  have  a  meeting  of  the  white  male  members  of  the  Church  for  a 
free  conversation  on  the  affairs  of  the  Church.  Such  a  meeting  was  accord, 
iiigly  called,  Ut  take  place  in  Trinity  Church  on  the  cvciiing  of  November 
12.  Here  the  design  of  the  opposition  party  became  more  clearly  mani. 
fest,  and  which  was,  to  get  all  the  Church  property  if. to  their  own  hands, 
and  eventually,  to  control  the  administration  of  the  Discipline.  One  evi. 
deuce  of  this  was  the  refusal  of  a  majority  present  (and  to  which  they  were 
instigated  by  the  master  movei  in  this  whole  plot)  to  recognise  brother  Bass 
as  Pr«-sident  of  the  meeting,  by  virtue  of  his  office  as  Presiding  Elder;  de- 
claring that  it  was  a  corporate  meeting,  and  they  had  a  right  to  elect  their 
Chairman.  It  was  in  vain  that  brother  Capers,  the  Preacher  in  Charge,  de- 
clared  he  had  not  called  a  corporate  meeting;  some  insisted  that  he  had; 
and  as  the  Preachers  could  not  surrender  their  pastoral  and  mmisterial 
functions,  made  theirs  by  the  Discipline,  they  concluded  the  meeting  by 
prayer  and  the  benediction.  A  coi'Siderable  number  however  remained, 
and  proceeded  to  adopt  an  entire  new  system  of  rules  for  the  government  of 
tlie  M<:;tho(list  Episcopal  Church  in  Charleston,  entirely  at  variance  with 
her  Discipline  and  usages,  and  in  eflect,  renouncing  ihe  authority  of  the 
Genefal  Coiiference. 

Another  remarkable  circuinstanco  attending  this  meeting,  was,  their 
proceeding  to  elect  a  Board  of  Trustees.  For  though  they  elected  the 
same  persons  who  constituted  the  proper  Board  of  the  Church,  their  design 
was  to  get  rid  of  them  altogether,  thti  more  cortaiiily  to  get  the  Church  pro. 
perty  into  f  Ueir  own  hands.  This  is  evident  from  the  following  considera- 
tions. They  knc<v  the  Trustees  would  not  act  under  their  new  appoint- 
ment from  men  whoso  nuthorily  they  did  not  acknowledge,  and  whose  whole 
course  they  coiisidcred  a  ])aipablo  violation  of  the  Discipline;  and  accord- 
ingly, one  of  (heir  resolutions  provided  to  vacate  the  elections,  if  (he  newly 
elected  Truste«js  should  not  signify  their  acceptanco  of  office  within  fifteen 
days.  What  the'i?  why  of  course  another  Board  would  be  elected  who 
would  comply  with  all  their  revolutionary  measures.  And  this  according, 
ly  happened,  for.  as  hod  been  ibreseen,  the  Trustees  refused  their  new 
election,  and  another  Board  was  elected  in  their  places.  We  might  pause 
here  to  remark  <^n  several  instances  of  gross  inconsistency  in  the  schism- 
atics.    One  only  may  sufHce.     All  their  clamor  had  been  raised  in  pretend- 


ed  tespect  for  that  provision  of  the  Discipline  which  makes  the  Trustees 
responsible  to  the  Quarterly  Conference;  but  in  their  new  code  for  the 
Church,  they  took  away  all  rcsponsibihty  to  the  Quarterly  Conference  and 
transferred  it  to  tlicmsclves.  And  yet  these  were  the  men  who  vehemently 
contended  they  were  fully  covered  by  the  Discipline. 

One  only  alternative  now  remained  for  the  Preacher  in  Charge:  i.  e.  ei- 
ther to  suffer  our  whole  system  of  Discipline  to  be  prostrated,  or  to  take 
measures  for  the  infliction  of  its  penalties  on  these  otfenders.  A  sense  of 
duty  compelled  him  to  adopt  the  latter  course.  Before  its  execution,  how- 
ever, another  last  effort  was  made  to  restore  peace  to  the  Church  without 
cutting  off  those  who  had  so  long  violated,  and  even  trampled  upon,  her 
just  authority.  It  was  an  aftcctionatc  proposal  by  brother  Capers  to  with- 
draw the  charges  preferred  against  some  of  the  principals  of  the  opposi- 
tion, provided  they  would  retract  their  illegal  proceedings  and  submit  the 
decision  of  the  disputed  point  about  Church  property  to  the  Appeal  Judges, 
and  that  about  the  Discipline  to  the  Bishops.  This  proposal  was  acceded 
to,  aiid  that  under  circumstances  peculiarly  solemn  and  aflecting,  and  tor  a 
while  universal  satisfaction  seemed  to  prevail.  But  the  scene  became 
changed,  almost  as  soon  as  one  absent  member  of  the  o|)position  had  return- 
ed to  town,  a  few  weeks  after  the  reconciliation.  The  party  receded  from 
their  most  solemn  engagements,  threw  themselves  back  on  their  former  pro- 
ceedings, and  again  jeoparded  the  peace  of  the  Church.  This  Avas  the 
posture  of  affairs  at  the  time  of  the  session  of  our  last  Conference  in  Charles- 
ton. 

Your  Committee  would  here  offer  a  remark  or  two  touching  the  admin- 
istration of  the  Discipline,  in  relation  to  this  affair,  by  brother  Capers.  He 
has  been  warmly  accused  of  being  arbitrary  and  domineering  in  his  conduct 
towards  the  Church,  and  towards  this  schismatic  party  in  particular.  So 
far  from  this  having  been  the  case,  your  Committee  are  fully  persuaded 
that  if  he  erred  in  any  respect  it  was  in  excessive  forbearance,  which  had 
rather  a  tendency  to  encourage  the  disaffected  than  to  bring  them  to  repen- 
tance. And  concerning  the  accusation  of  his  having  read  a  paper  falsely 
in  the  meeting  in  Trinity  Church  on  the  12th  of  November,  1833,  we  con- 
sider  it  unfeasible  in  itself,  and  amply  refuted  by  the  testimony  of  several  of 
the  most  respected  members  of  this  Conference  who  were  present,  as  well 
as  a  number  of  the  members  of  the  Church  in  Charleston.  For  farther  in- 
formation on  this  particular,  and  others  touching  brother  Capers'  conduct, 
and  that  of  the  party  towards  him,  we  beg  leave  to  refer  to  his  communica- 
tion to  us,  and  the  accompanying  documents  herewith  submitted. 

Your  Committee  would  now  notice  another  circumstance  of  considerable 
importance.  During  the  time  of  the  sitting  of  the  Annual  Conference  in 
Charleston,  Bishop  Emory  made  several  attempts  to  effect  a  reconciliation, 
but  could  not  succeed.  The  reason  why  he  could  not,  appears  to  have 
been  this:  The  Corporation  party  were  determined  to  hold  a  claim  to  the 
election  of  the  Trustees  in  order  to  their  controling  the  Church  property,, 
(which  was  their  favorite  design  from  first  to  last,)  while  the  Board  of 
Trustees,  supported  by  the  wishes  of  a  majority  of  the  members,  scrupu- 
lously  adhered  to  the  letter  of  the  Discipline.  But  even  could  it  have  been 
expedient  for  the  members,  generally,  to  elect  the  Trustees,  and  admitting 
also  that  the  Discipline  would  allow  it,  still  the  Corporation  party  were  glar- 
ingly inconsistent  with  their  professed  principles;  for  they,  the  Corporation 
party,  werea  minority  of  the  members,  and  had  always  been  so,  a  decided 


majority  of  the  Church  being  with  the  Trustees.  Bishop  Emoiy  i»revailed 
only  so  liir  witli  them  as  to  induce  them  to  consent  to  h-avo  their  preten- 
sions  as  to  the  DiscipHne  to  the  decision  ol'the  Bishops,  and  till  that  decision 
should  be  had,  not  to  attempt  any  proceedinfjs  under  (or  as  if  under)  the  act 
of  the  Legislature  of  1787,  incorporating  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church 
in  Charleston.  As  m  former  instances,  however,  so  in  this  again,  they 
grossly  violated  their  engagement.  On  the  5lh  July  tbllowing,  the  party 
held  a  meeting  in  Trinity  School  Room,  at  which  they  pwsed  a  scries  of 
inflanunatory  resolutions,  and  among  others  this  one — That  they  would  not 
thereafter  agree  to  any  i)roposal  of  accommodation,  come  trom  what  quar- 
ter it  might,  that  was  not  based  on  the  by-laws  adopted  by  them  m  Novem- 
ber preceding.  That  is  in  amount,  they  would  not  agree  to  any  proposal 
of  accommodation  which  shovdd  not  recognise  the  right  of  the  minority  of 
the  male  members  to  make  laws  for  the  majority  of  the  male  members, 
however  against  the  will  of  the  majority,  and  against  the  Church  Discipline. 

This  pany  have  taken  much  pains  to  have  it  believed  that  the  reason  of 
their  passing  those  resolutions  was,  that  the  Board  of  Trustees  had  not 
kept  promises  made  by  them  not  to  act  as  a  Board,  unless  in  some  necessa- 
ry instances,  till  the  decision  of  the  Bishops  should  be  known.  The  truth 
was,  the  Trustees  had  never  made  any  such  promise  at  all,  nor  had  any  such 
been  required  of  them.  This  is  evident  from  the  testimony  of  Bishop 
Emory  himself. 

The  party  have  also  labored  hard  to  prove  that  Bishop  Emory  justified 
their  proceedings;  even  their  acts  of  Nov.  12,  1833,  by  which  on  an  as- 
sumption of  corporate  powers  they  took  to  themselves  the  right  of  super- 
ceding the  authority  of  the  Discipline,  and  make  what  laws  they  pleased  for 
the  Church  in  Charleston.  But  here  again  the  Bishop  is  conclusively 
against  them,  as  will  fully  appear  by  reference  to  his  letter  herewith  pre- 
sented to  the  Conference. 

Passing  over  a  number  of  particulars  too  tedious  to  narrate,  and  which  do 
not  touch  the  main  points  of  the  case,  your  Committee  proceed  to  the  cir- 
cumstances  nearly  connected  with  the  closing  scene  of  this  uidiappy  affair. 
The  inflammatory  resolutions  above  mentioned  had  shut  up  all  the  avenues 
to  conciliation;  and  the  Preacher  in  Charge,  brother  William  M.  Kennedy, 
had  no  alternative  left  but  to  execute  our  wholesome  Discipline  on  the  re- 
fractory, or  suffer  the  whole  Church  to  be  prostrated  before  the  self-created 
corporation  party.  Measures  were  accordingly  taken  to  bring  the  princi- 
pals,  about  eight  in  number,  to  trial.  In  the  mean  time  the  party  who  had 
so  long  disturbed  the  peace  of  the  Church,  now  seemed  roused  to  do  all  the 
mischief  they  possibly  could.  They  procured  the  signatures  of  about  one 
liundred  and  eighteen  persons,  of  both  sexes,  minprs  and  adults,  to  a  paper 
in'which  they  pledged  themselves  to  withdraw  from  the  Church  if  the  per- 
sons cited  to  trial  should  be  expelled.  This  was  done,  and  the  paper  exhi- 
bited to  the  Preachers,  in  hope  of  deterring  them  from  their  duty.  The 
Preachers,  how^ever,  were  not  to  be  scared  into  compliance.  A  conscious 
sense  of  rectitude  and  duty  bore  them  up  at  this  trying  crisis.  The  Discip- 
line was  enforced,  and  the  eight  accused  persons  were  expelled  from  the 
Church.  As  was  to  be  expected,  the  one  hundred  and  eighteen  persons  who 
had  pledged  themselves  to  the  leaders  of  the  party  by  signing  a  paper,  left 
the  Church  immediately  after  the  expulsion  of  the  eight,  and  subsequently 
others  withdrew. 

In  reviewing  the  history  of  this  wretched  affair,  your  Committee  are  fully 


9 

impressed  with  the  belief  that  the  maiu  design  of  the  leaders  of  the  corpo- 
ration party  was  to  get  the  whole  of  the  Church  property  into  their  hands, 
and  then  free  themselves  of  the  restraints  of  the  Methodist  Discipline.  This 
is  indeed  the  ti*ue  key  which  unlocks  all  their  proceedings.  Your  Com- 
mittee are  also  fully  persuaded  that  our  ministers  who  have  been  stationed 
in  Charleston,  daring  the  time  of  this  whole  aflair,  so  far  from  being  guilty 
of  the  aristocratic  and  tyrannical  conduct  attributed  to  them,  have  rather 
carried  their  moderation  and  forbearance  to  a  degree  bordering  on  error, 
and  finally  were  driven  to  act  under  an  absolute  necessity  of  either  cutting 
off  the  refractory,  or  sufleriug  the  Church  to  be  prostrated  by  a  law- 
less faction. 

In  conclusion,  your  Committee  would  remark  that  the  bitter  invectives 
which  have  been  published  against  the  Preachers  of  the  Charleston  station, 
can  be  looked  upon  only  as  the  genuine  fruits  of  disappointed  ambition;  and 
we  esteem  it  a  sufficient  refutation  of  these  calumnies,  to  refer  our  people 
to  the  accompanying  documents.  Your  Committee  therefore  recommend 
the  publication  by  order  of  Conference,  of  this  Report,  and  the  documents 
which  are  herewith  presented. 

All  which  is  respectfully  submitted. 

SAMUEL  DUNWODY,  Chairman. 


We  the  members  of  the  Committee  of  the  South  Carolina  Conference, 
charged  with  the  investigation  of  the  late  Schism  in  Charleston,  do  hereby 
certify  that  we  have  carefully  examined  the  original  documents  published 
by  Dr.  Capers,  in  his  exposition  of  that  Schism,  last  autumn,  and  have  found 
them  to  be  exactly,  in  every  particular,  the  same  as  published.  In  particu- 
lar, the  paper  which  he  offered  to  the  persons  who  were  cited  to  trial  by 
him,  and  to  the  face  of  which  he  appealed  in  his  exposition  as  furnishing 
evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  statement  of  the  transaction  at  Mr.  Honour's  on 
the  8th  of  December,  we  find  to  be  just  as  he  affirmed  of  it,  in  all  respects. 

SAMUEL  DUNWODY, 
HARTWELL  SPAIN, 
MALCOM  M'PHERSON, 
DANIEL  G.  M'DANIEL, 
ROBERT  ADAMS. 


2 


DOCUMENI'S 

REFERRED  TO  IN  THE  PRECEDING  REPORT. 


I'u  the  brctlircn  Samiel  Dunwodv,   Malcom   McPheksox,  Habtwell 

Si'Ai.v,  Daniel  li.  McDamei-,  and  Robert  Adams,  Committee. 
Dear  Bheticken, 

You  having  been  appointed  "a  Committee  to  investigate  the  subject  of 
tlie  late  Schism  in  the  Church  in  Charleston,  and  to  report  to  the  Confer- 
ence whether  or  not  any  act  of  this  body  is  required  on  that  account,"  I  lay 
before  you  the  accompanying  documents,  and  with  them  a  few  brief  re- 
marks. 

1st.  The  Document  marked  (A.)  concerns  what  was  read  by  me  in  tlie 
meeting  in  Trinity  Church  Nov.  12, 1833.  To  you  I  need  not  explain  why 
this  document  is  offered  in  the  form  of  a  certificate  and  not  that  of  an  affida- 
vit. I  could  not  ask  brethren  to  swear  on  the  bare  account  that  others  had 
rashly  adventured  an  oath.  Indeed,  I  hold  that  Christian  men  ought  not 
to  swear  unless  required  by  the  civil  authority.  To  swear  of  their  owu 
motion,  without  Cesar's  command,  I  consider  profane.  You  know  the 
persons  whose  names  are  subscribed  well  enough  to  be  assured  that  what 
ihey  have  here  certified  lliey  would  swear  to  on  a  proper  occasion. 

2nd.  The  Docu.ncnl  marked  (B.)  is  a  certificate  of  Major  Benjamin 
Hart,  of  Columbia,  So.  ( "a.  to  prove  that  I  have  returned  to  him  still  "sealed" 
the  address  or  "resohitions''  of  the  meeting  in  Columbia,  of  which  he  was 
Chairman.  What  tiiose  resolutions  were  I  never  knew.  They  were  sent 
to  me  separately  sealed,  with  a  rccpicst  that  I  would  not  open  the  paper  ex- 
cept  in  a  meeting  of  tlie  Church.  AVhatever  they  might  be,  (hey  came  too 
late  to  be  of  any  service.  I  wrote  the  next  day  to  Major  Hart  on  the  sub- 
ject, and  he  Mas  content.  But  the  infatuation  which  conjured  against  me 
the  false  reading  in  the  meeting  of  Nov.  12,  1833,  and  swore  to  if,  must 
needs  sustain  itself  by  farther  aggression;  and  liaving  first  made  me  a  liar 
without  any  conscience,  it  makes  me  also  a  base  fellow  without  any  heart. 
I  had  said  in  my  Exposition  that  my  mind  was  agonised  in  view  of  the  ex- 
pulsion  at  one  stroke  of  nine  of  the  official  members  of  the  Church  of  my 
charge,  and  having  exhausted  in  vain  what  stock  of  argument  I  had  to  pre- 
vent that  issue,  I  drew  up  a  paper  which  1  thought  might  preserve  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  Discipline  and  plead  with  them  by  tears  and  entreaties,  for 
Christ's  sake,  for  th',-  sake  of  their  wives  and  children,  and  even  for  my  own 
sake,  not  to  persist  in  their  Schismatic  measures.  They  say  in  their  Re- 
joinder,— "The  members  positively  refused  to  sign  the  paper,  and  Dr.  Ca- 
pers left  the  room  without  a  single  signature  being  affixed  to  it,  observing 
as  he  went  out  in  an  appurod  agony,  'brethren  you  may  not  care  about  be- 
ing expelled  the  Church  but  I  do,  and  I  cannot  and  will  not  expell  you.' 
And  his  making  this  remark,  together  with  the  feelings  manifested  by  him, 
were  the  only  reasons  why  the  members  signed  it  at  all,  one  of  them  ob- 
serving Met  us  sign  it,  for  if  we  refuse  any  longer  if  will  kill  brother  Capers.' 


\ 


11 

According  to  llio  gentlemen's  own  shewing  then,  it  appears  there  was  uo 
room  for  doubt  at  the  time,  both  as  to  my  "agony  of  mind"  and  the  cause 
of  it.  But  what  spirit  is  this  which  moves  them  now  to  turn  the  whole 
scene  into  a  contemptible  farce,  and  worse?  The  gentlemen  represent  that 
I  violated  a  seal  \vhich  had  been  confided  to  me,  and  so  got  information 
which  set  me  to  cajoling  them  by  a  mimicry  of  pious  grief.  The  testimony 
however,  is  conclusive  against  them;  and  I  again  affirm  that  to  this  day  1  have 
not  been  informed  what  were  the  resolutions  of  the  meeting  in  Columbia.  If 
the  statement  in  the  Rejoinder  was  contrived  for  the  purpose  of  raising  ot'- 
fence  towards  me  in  the  respected  brethren  who  formed  that  meeting,  1  am 
glad  to  know  that  it  has  failed  of  its  object.  If  it  was  only  an  ebullition  of 
passionate  ill-will,  then  let  its  authors  be  assured  that  I  pity  and  pray  for 
them. 

The  Document  marked  (C.)  is  a  communication  from  Bishop  Emory, 
spontaneously  written  and  sent  to  me  on  his  receiving  the  Rejoinder.  I 
need  make  no  remark  on  it.  Its  testimony  is  unequivocal,  and  shews 
throughout,  what  credit  ought  to  be  given  to  the  statements  of  that  pam- 
phlet. 

Will  my  persecutors  betake  themselves  again  to  their  oaths,  ^^eight 
to  one?"'  Will  they  swear  to  their  statement  of  the  conference  they  say  they 
had  with  the  Bishop  about  impeaching  me?  Will  they  swear  to  the  long 
quotations  they  have  published,  marked  at  every  line  as  quoted  verbatim 
from  the  Bishop?     But  I  forbear. 

With  the  above  mentioned  documents  I  also  submit  for  }our  examination, 
the  original  documents  published  in  my  exposition;  and  request  you  to  exam- 
ine them  closely,  and  certify  to  their  exact  agreement  with  what  I  have 
published. 

I  am  dear  brethren,  affectionately 

and  sincerely  yours, 

W.  CAPERS. 

P.  S.  J  have  not  thought  it  worth  mj'  time  to  follow  my  persecutors 
through  all  their  vagaries.  If,  however,^  in  the  course  of  your  investiga- 
tions, you  find  any  thing  in  the  "Rejoinder"  which  you  judge  important  to 
be  answered,  and  which  I  have  not  noticed,  please  let  me  know;  and  I  think 
I  can  promise  you  as  ample  and  satisfactory  an  answer  as  you  can  wish. 
Their  repetition  in  the  Rejoinder  of  what  I  had  fully  refuted  in  my  exposi- 
tion  last  fall,  while  they  have  not  ventured  to  encounter  the  force  of  the  evi- 
dence, in  a  single  particular,  by  which  their  statements  had  been  proved 
untrue,  I  deem  unworthy  of  any  notice.  God  knows  I  pity  them.  They 
have  causclesplv  assailed  me.     I  never  did  them  an)'  Avrong,  nor  would  I. 

W.  C. 


(A.) 


Certificates  concernini;  the  reading  of  a  paper  in  Trinity  Church,  Nov.  12. 

1833. 

Wjikkeas  in  a  pamphlet  by  Messrs.  William  Laval  and  others,  in  Au- 
gust  last,  a  circumstantial  statement  has  been  given  of  the  reading  of  a  cer- 
tain paper  by  Dr.  William  Capers,  in  a  Church  meeting  held  in  Trinity 
Church,  Nov.  12,  1833,  and  thvi  principal  particulars  of  this  statement  of 
Messrs.  Laval  and  others,  have  been  subsequently  sworn  to,  and  the  affida- 
vits published  in  a  second  pamphlet,  called  "A  Rejoinder" — Wk  the  under- 
signed  hnving  been  present  as  membpre  ^^p■^ifi  nieeling  and  v.itnese'ed  all 


12 

the  proceedings,  believing  it  due  to  truth  and  justice  that  wo  should  declare 
our  testimony  in  the  case,  do  say  and  declare  as  follows: 

1st.  The  point  of  dispute  which  induced  the  reading  of  a  paper  by  Dr. 
Capers  in  the  meeting  above  mentioned,  was  not  respecting  any  resolution 
of  a  previous  party  meeting,  as  to  what  such  resolution  expressed,  but  was 
respecting  the  particular  character  of  the  meeting  then  present,  whether  it  was 
a  meeting  of  the  Church  as  a  corporation  or  not,  and  how  it  had  been  called. 

2nd.  What  was  read,  and  the  reading  repeated  by  Dr.  Capers  in  the 
aforesaid  meeting  of  the  12th  Nov.  1833,  and  of  which  he  affirmed  that  it 
expressed  nothing  about  corporation,  was  not  read  by  him  as  the  resolution 
of  a  previous  party  meeting,  nor  do  wc  believe  it  was  said  resolution.  But 
to  the  best  of  our  knowledge  it  was  either  what  had  been  addressed  to  him 
by  the  Committee  of  the  party  meeting,  or  the  notice  by  which  the  then 
present  Church  meeting  had  been  called. 

3rd.  After  reading  a  first  and  second  time,  as  above,  and  aftirming  as 
above,  Dr.  Capers  did  then,  at  the  call  of  some  one  present,  read  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  party  meeting  of  the  29th  October  preceding,  and  in  the  words 
of  said  resolution  as  published,  adding  that  he  cared  not  for  what  it  said;  or 
words  to  this  effect. 

4th.  There  was  no  manifestation  in  the  meeting,  by  silence  or  otherwise, 
of  astonishment  at  the  reading  of  what  was  read  by  Dr.  Capers;  (as  is  affirm- 
ed in  thepamphlet  before  mentioned;)  nor  did  we  discover  in  what  he  said 
on  that  occasion  any  thing  inconsistent  with  sincerity  and  truth;  but  he  ap- 
peared undisguisedly,  earnestly,  and  candidly  opposed  to  the  pretensions  set 
up  by  the  corporation  party,  and  in  this,  we  believe,  consisted  his  whole  offence. 
We  further  add,  that  Irom  ihe  time  of  the  aforesaid  12th  November,  1833, 
until  the  pamphlets  appeared,  (being  a  space  of  seven  or  eight  months,)  we 
never  heard  it  intimated  from  any  quarter  that  Dr.  Capers  had  been  guilty 
of  any  unfairness  or  duplicity  in  reading  on  that  occasion. 
(Signed) 
JOHN  MOOD,  SAMUEL  J.  WAGNER, 

ABEL  M'KEE,  GEORGE  CHRIETZBURG. 

HENRY  MUCKENFUSS,  FREDERICK  BURROWS, 

BENJ.  S.  D.  MUCKENFUSS,        ALEXANDER  C.  TORREY, 
JOHN  C.  MILLER,  WILLIAM  WIGHTMAN,  Jr. 

WILLIAM  H.  WHITE,  PAUL  REMLEY, 

JOSEPH  CURTIS,  JOHN  C.  SIMMONS, 

GEORGE  J UST,  JACOB  RABB, 

SOLOMON  L.  REEVES,  ORRIN  C.  PARKER, 

WILLIAM  BIRD,  PETER  MOOD. 

The  Undersigned  ministers  of  the  South-Carohna  Conference  of  the  Me- 
thodist Episcopal  Church,  having  been  present  in  the  meeting  in  Trinity 
Church  on  the  12th  November  1833,  and  witnessed  the  proceedings  in  said 
meeting,  do  concur  fully,  unequivocally,  and  without  reserve  in  the  preced- 
ing certificate.  '  HENRY  BASS, 

JOSEPH  HOLMES, 
HUGH  A.  C.  WALKER. 

1  was  in  the  meeting  above  mentioned  during  all  the  time  it  was  held. 
My  hearing  is  too  imperfect  for  me  to  affirm  positively  of  words  spoken, 
but  I  affirm  that  from   what  I  could  hear,  and  8aw.  and  understood  at  the 


13 

time,  aud  have  always  since  believed,  I  am  fully  persuaded  the  tbregoing 
certificates  are  correct.  I  always  understood  the  subject  as  it  is  herex'ep- 
resented.  '  REDDICK  PIERCE. 

I  was  in  the  aforesaid  meeting,  but  not  in  time  to  witness  the  reading  of 
the  papers  referred  to.  I  affirm,  however,  that  I  have  no  recollection  of 
ever  having  heard  Dr.  Capers  charged  with  any  thing  improper  in  reading 
the  papers  above  mentioned  until  the  appearance  of  the  pamphlet  in  August 
afterwards.  WHITEFOORD  SiMITH,  Juar. 


(B.) 
Major  Hart's  Certijicate. 

I  do  hereby  certify,  that  duriijg  the  session  of  the  Legislature  in  the  month 
of  December,  1833,  a  number  of  the  members  of  the  Methodist  Church,  who 
were  at  that  time  in  Columbia  from  various  parts  of  the  State,  as  well  as 
some  of  those  who  reside  there,  having  heard  of  the  unfortunate  dispute 
and  misunderstanding  that  had  taken  place  among  their  Brethren  in 
Charleston,  determined  to  call  a  meeting,  to  see,  if  they  could  devise  and 
recommend  such  measures  as  would  probably  restore  that  peace  and  har- 
mony to  the  Church,  that  had  been  so  unhappily  disturbed.  A  meeting  was 
therefore  called  for  this  purpose,  on  the  evening  of  the  third  of  December, 
at  which  meeting  a  Committee  was  appointed  to  draft  an  address  to  be  sent 
to  the  Pastors  and  members  of  the  Methodist  E.  Church  in  the  city  of 
Charleston.  At  a  subsequent  meeting  the  Committee  reported  an  address, 
which  was  unanimously  approved  and  adopted.  And  the  meeting  instruct, 
ed  me,  as  their  Chairman,  to  transmit  their  proceedings,  to  the  Pastors  and 
other  members  of  the  Methodist  Church  in  Charleston,  as  early  as  practi- 
cable. I  therefore  inclosed  it  in  an  envelope,  and  directed  it,  as  I  hiid  been 
instructed.  This  packet  was  inclosed  in  another  envelope,  and  directed  to 
the  Rev'd  Doctor  Capers,  with  a  request  that  the  enclosed,  should  not  be 
opened,  but  in  a  meeting  of  the  members  of  the  Church.  Some  short  time 
after  this,  I  received  a  letter  from  Doctor  Capers,  acknowledging  the  re- 
ceipt  of  the  communication,  and  also  stating  that  a  previous  meeting 
had  taken  place,  and  that  he  had  some  assurance  that  the  whole  matter 
would  be  amicably  adjusted.  I  further  certify,  that  the  packet  con- 
taining the  proceedings  of  the  meeting  in  Columbia,  and  which  had 
been  inclosed  and  sent  to  Doctor  Capers,  was  returned  to  me  on  the  11th 
Feby.  1835,  by  Doctor  Capers  himself,  in  precisely  the  same  situ- 
ation, that  it  was,  at  the  time  I  inclosed  it  to  him.  I  am  fully  satisfied  that 
the  seals  had  not  been  broken,  nor  could  the  contents  of  the  packet  be  taken 
out,  or  seen,  without  either  breaking  the  seals,  or  cutting,  or  tearing  the 
paper,  neither  of  which  appears  to  have  been  done. 

BENJAMIN  HART. 


Bishop  Emory  s  Letter. 

To  the  Rev.  H.  Bass,  W.  M.  Kennedy,  and  W.  Capers. 
Dear  Brethren, 

The  use  which  has  been  made  of  my  name  in  connexion  with  yours,  in 
certain  pamphlets  published  in  Charleston,  on  the  subject  of  our  late  Church 
difficulties  in  that  city,  induces  me  to  trouble  you  with  the  following  com- 
munication.    In  doijig  this,  however,  it  is  my  purposr;  barely  to  make  such 


14 

corrections  and  explanutioiis  as  candor  seems  lo  reijuire,  siiupl\  in  the  or- 
der in  which  the  niaitcrs  occur  to  me,  without  regard  to  ihcir  comparative 
importance. 

The  authors  of  the  pamphlet  piihhshed  in  August  lust,  subscribed  by 
*'John  Kingman  '  and  others,  make  certain  statemt>its  (p.  41-2  edition  an- 
nexed to  the  "Exposition"  &c.)  on  which  1  will  submit  a  few  observations. 

That  the  mere  tact  of  a  Church  beuig  incorporated  is  not  a  violation  of 
our  Discipline,  1  considered  so  plain,  that  it  would  bo  no  departur<j  iVum  my 
rule  of  proceeding  to  answer  a  question  on  that  point  ;  and  also  to  state  that 
there  are  places,  where,  in  such  incorporated  Cliuif hcs,  the  male  members, 
under  certain  regulations,  elect  the  Trnste(>^.  1  think,  however,  tha<.  I  did 
not  use  the  term  "many,"  and  am  sali^Jied  that  I  g.tve  no  opiinon  on  the 
question  whether  it  be  consistent  with  our  Discipline  tor  the  members  them, 
selves  to  solicit  such  a  charter,  or  to  iiistitute  such  a  regulation  of  their  own, 
zrhen  not  required  to  do  so  by  any  lau. 

The  paper  which  I  read  lo  the  Society  in  Trinity  Church  on  the  16th  of 
February  last,  was  noi  snhnuMcd  vi»  a  proposition  frov\  me.  This  was  re- 
peatedly  stated  at  the  time  of  reading  it.  Nor  had  the  Trustees,  personally 
or  otherwise,  pledged  themselves  to  abide  by  it.  Having  failed  to  effect  an 
agreement  by  personal  mediation,  my  object  in  draw  ing  that  paper  was  to 
embody  in  writing  the  precise  terms  on  which  the  corporation  party,  so  CixW- 
ed,  would  agree  to  a  settlement.  This  is  expressly  stated  in  the  paper  it- 
self.  I  endeavoured,  at  the  same  time,  to  bring  them  as  near  as  1  could  to 
the  opposite  side,  to  remove  misunderstanding,  and,  in  any  event,  to  secure 
the  Discipline  of  the  Church.  That  part  of  the  paper  which  provided  for 
the  decision  of  questions  of  Discipline  by  the  Bishops,  and  of  law  by  com- 
mon counsel,  was  of  my  suggestion. 

The  gentlemen  who  acted  in  the  name  of  the  corporation  party,  did  agree 
to  suspend  all  farther  proceedings  under  the  act  of  1787  till  the  decision  of 
the  Bishops  on  the  questions  to  be  submitted  to  them,  should  be  known. 
This  is  also  stated  in  the  paper;  but  I  had  no  pledge  from  the  Trustees  for 
any  suspension  on  their  part.  The  Rev.  H.  Bass  and  W.  M .  Kennedy 
Avere  never  considered  by  me  as  representatives  of  the  Trustees.  I  invited 
them  to  be  present  at  our  interviews  in  their  own  proper  relation,  as  Presid- 
ing Elder,  and  Minister  in  Charge;  and  regarded  whatever  they  said  or  did, 
as  on  their  own  individual  judgment  and  responsibility.  They  made  no 
"agreement"  for  the  Trustees;  nor  did  I  ever  consider  it  as  "expressly  un- 
derstood," that  action  should  be  suspended  by  both  parties  and  nothing  done, 
save  the  ordinary  business  of  the  Church,  till  I  should  be  heard  from.  Af- 
ter reading  the  paper  in  Triuit}-,  I  did  not  afford  any  opportunity  for  discus- 
sion, nor  expect  or  desire  any  at  that  time.  I  thought  it  better  lo  leave  a 
copy  with  the  preachers,  to  which  all  might  have  access,  and  stated  publicly 
that  I  would  do  so — adding  such  earnest  exhortations  to  mutual  forbearance 
and  peace  as  I  was  enabled,  in  hope  that,  with  better  feelings,  and  after  in- 
dividual consultations,  the  paper  might  lead  to  an  ultimate  adjustment  which 
should  both  be  satisfactory  to  the  Society  in  Charleston,  and  preserve  the 
integrity  of  our  general  economy. 

I  did  not  promise  to  send  the  decision  of  the  Bishops  in  two  months  ;  but 
stated  in  answer  to  an  cn(iuiry,  that  I  thought  it  j)robable  it  might  be  had  in 
that  time.  Neither  did  I  mean  to  be  understood  iii  my  letter  to  brother 
Kennedy,  that  I  had  obtained  the  decision,  but  thought  it  unnecessary  to 
forward  it.     My  statement  wa??.  that  I   had  romrncnecd  a   ccrrcsponde?icc 


\ 


with  luy  cuileaj!;ucs  on  the  subjool,  on  iii\  |umncv  Iroiu  Charleston,  but  liaii 
tbun<I  it  (liflicuh,  from  our  grunt  distanci;  jipart,  &c.  to  conic  to  a  speedy 
result;  and  that  indeed,  unless  the  brethren  on  both  sides  agreed  to  abide  by 
the  measures  stated  in  the  paper  read  in  'J'rinity,  in  case  of  the  judgment  of 
the  Bishops,  I  hesitated  as  to  the  propriety  of  communicating  it,  since,  in 
that  case,  it  would  probably  not  etlect  the  object  in  view,  the  peace  of  the 
Church.  Of  this  result,  all  hope  was  cutolFby  the  resolutions  of  the  gen- 
tlemenon  the  5th  of  July,  announcing  their  determination  no  longer  to  be 
bound  by  the  arrangement,  <k.c. 

In  the  appendix  to  the  pamphlet  above  qiiotcd,  it  is  stated  that  it  had  been 
the  intention  of  the  corporation  party  to  impeach  Dr.  Capers  before  the  last 
South-Carolina  Annual  Conference  ;  and  among  other  reasons  for  not  pro- 
secuting that  design,  the  following  is  given: — "Ahhough  Bishop  Emory  very 
justly  remarked,  M'hen  informed  of  the  design  of  the  members  to  impeach, 
that  the  Dr.  was  amenable  to  the  South-Carolina  Conference  until  dis- 
charged from  it;  yet  as  he  was  to  fill  an  important  station  in  Georgia,  it  was 
apprehended  that  his  usefulness  might  be  materially  affected  by  an  exposi- 
tion of  his  aristocratic  government  of  the  Church  here,  which  wc  did  not 
wish  should  be  the  case." 

I  camiot  be  sui-prised  if  the  readers  of  that  pamphlet  have  received  the 
impression  that  I  used  efforts  to  dissuade  the  gentlemen  from  impeaching 
Dr.  Capers,  and  particularly,  on  the  ground  of  the  injury  which  would  be 
done  to  his  usefulness  by  "an  exposition  of  his  aristocratic  government  of 
the  Church  in  Charleston."  I  must  hope,  however,  that  they  did  not  intend 
to  make  this  impression,  nor  designedly  use  so  ambiguous  a  phraseology  ; 
for  they  certainly  know  that  there  was  not  a  particle  of  ground  for  such  a 
statement.  I  was  never  informed  that  "the  members"  (if  by  this  be  meant 
the  members  of  the  Church  generally,)  intended  to  impeach  Dr.  Capers;  and 
it  is  my  strong  impression  that  none  of  the  gentlemen  ever  mentioned  to  me 
that  such  had  been  their  own  intention,  till  after  the  close  of  the  South-Ca- 
rolina Conference,  and,  I  think,  till  after  Dr.  Capers  had  left  Charleston. 
It  was  at  this  period,  as  my  impression  is,  that  one  of  them  in  the  course 
of  conversation  remarked  to  me,  that  if  Dr.  C.  had  been  present  at  the  inter- 
view which  they  had  with  Bishop  Andrew  and  myself,  on  the  evening  pre- 
vious to  the  Conference,  it  had  been  their  design  to  impeach  him  ;  or  some 
such  term.  I  answered,  that  I  should  not  have  expected  such  a  course  in 
such  an  inter\"i(;w,  nor  have  considered  it  the  proper  time  or  place  for  pre- 
ferring an  impeachment.  That  Dr.  C.  was  amenable  to  the  Conference, 
just  then  on  tbc  eve  of  sitting;  and  that  an  impeachment  should  have  been 
preferred  to  that  body,  if  any  had  been  intend«d.  The  gentleman  replied, 
that  it  had  been  stated  in  the  newspapers,  that  Dr.  C.  had  been  transferred 
to  the  Georgia  Conference,  and  stationed  in  Savannah.  I  rejoined  that  such 
a  statement  had  not  been  authorised  by  me,  and  that  Dr.  C.  had  continued  a 
member  of  the  South-Carolina  Conference,  and  amenable  to  that  body,  till 
its  close.  This  was  the  substance  of  the  conversation,  and  that,  after  the 
close  of  the  South-Carolijia  Conference,  to  the  best  of  my  recollection. 

I  must  say  too,  that  I  never  did  request  Bishop  Andrew  to  urge  the  at- 
tendance of  Dr.  C.  at  the  interview  above  reterred  to,  as  might  be  supposed 
by  the  readers  of  the  "Rejoinder,"  (p.  9.)  published  by  the  same  gentlemen. 
In  conveying  to  Dr.  C.  an  invitation  to  be  present,  I  did  nothing  more  than 
fulfil  the  expressed  wish  of  the  gentlemen  who  had  requested  the  interview; 


16 

but  I  iicvtr  urged  ii,  uor  requested  any  other  persou  to  urge  it,  as  i  consid- 
ered Dr.  C  entirely  competent  to  judge  forhimsflf  in  the  matter,  and  en- 
tirely at.  liberty,  after  receiving  (lie  invitation,  to  bo  present  or  not,  at  his 
own  discretion. 

I  am  now  compelled  to  notice  a  statement  in  the  ''Rtjoinder"  whith  sur- 
prises me  above  niaasure.  The  authors  there  stJite,  (p.  19)  that  I  h;id  said 
that  the  acts  which  they  had  done,  and  proposed  doing,  under  the  showing 
of  their  by-laws,  &c.  were  not  contrary  to  the  Diseiphne.  The  same  tlung 
seems  to  he  intimated  (p.  Hi,)  in  regard  to  the  proceedings  which  they  had 
had,  or  proposed  lu  have,  uiider  the  orgaiiizatiojj  of  the  12th  Nov.  and  2nd 
Dec.  1833.  But  I  certainly  never  did  say  any  such  thiiig.  To  have  said 
so,  woul<l  have  been  a  plain  violation  of  the  |)rinciple  which  the  gentlemen 
acknowledge  I  had  declared  myself  determined  to  be  governed  by  from  my 
entrance  into  Charleston.  Indeed,  in  their  first  pamphlet,  they  themselves 
fully  acquit  me  of  so  glaring  an  inconsistency  ;  for  they  there  expressly 
say  (p.  4:1,)  thai  I  ^'carefuUy  abslahied,  and  very  properly  too,  from  giving 
any  opinion  on  tJie  questions  in  dispute'^  there.  How  then  could  I  have  giv- 
en an  opinion  in  favor  of  the  proceedings  had,  or  proposed  to  be  had,  by 
them  under  the  organization  of  Nov.  12,  and  Dec.  2,  1833,  when  these  pro- 
ceedings embraced  the  fundamental  points  of  the  whole  controversy. 

In  a  note  (p.  13  of  the  Rejoinder)  it  is  said  that  justice  to  me  required  it 
to  be  stated  that  I  had  carefully  avoided  any  departure  from  the  rule  which 
I  had  laid  down  for  my  government,  as  far  as  was  practicable,  considering 
the  questions  propounded  to  me  from  time  to  time.  But  I  desire  not  the 
protection  of  this  cover,  and  trust  you  know  me  too  well  to  believe  that  I 
could  have  been  drawn  into  so  gross  an  inconsistency,  even  by  a  direct 
question,  ifl  either  felt  myself  not  prepared  to  answer  it,  or  thought  it  not 
proper  to  be  answered.  Besides,  had  I  once  given  such  an  opinion  on  the 
very  essence  of  the  controversy,  would  it  not  have  been  quickly  circulated, 
and  have  been  worse  than  idle  afterward,  to  pretend  to  waive  an  opinion  on 
any  minor  point?  The  gentlemen  themselves  indeed,  on  this  point  too,  seem 
to  iTie  in  another  place  (p.  18,  Rejoinder)  expressly  to  vindicate  me  from 
their  own  imputation;  for  they  there  reproach  Mr.  Kennedy  with  having  un- 
dertaken to  decide  a  matter  which  I,  after  consulting  with  Bishop  Andrew, 
had  declined  adjudicating  without  a  consultation  with  a  majority  of  the 
Bishops.  Now  tliat  matter,  I  understand  to  be  precisely  the  same  as  above 
referred  to. 

At  p.  28-9  (Rejoinder)  I  am  introduced  as  a  witness,  with  many  expres- 
sions attributed  to  me  (marked  too,  with  quotation  marks  at  every  line) 
w  hich  I  certainly  never  used.  I  am  persuaded  I  did  not  say,  that  I  would 
draw  up  what  I  considered  would  meet  the  views  of  both  parties;  nor  sug- 
gest "an  appeal  to  the  court;"  nor  that  a  resort  to  the  law  by  a  hostile  suit 
might  be  the  only  way  to  terminate  the  controversy.  The  institution,  by 
mutual  agreement,  of  an  amicable  suit  for  its  settlement,  was  conversed  on, 
I  do  not  now  remen)ber  at  whose  suggestion;  but  even  this  was  not  then 
thought  expedient.  Other  particulars  might  be  noticed,  but  1  will  only  add 
that,  as  a  whole,  the  testimony  imputed  to  me  is  clothed  in  language,  and  put 
together  in  a  manner,  v  Inch  my  conversations  never  warranted,  and  so  as 
to  make  impressions  which  I  never  intended. 

That  I  w  as  induced  to  believe  the  gentleman  sincere  in  their  frequent  and 
solemn  declarations  of  attachment  to  the  Discipline  of  the  Church.  I    frankly 


acknowledge.  The  idea  oP"  "a  reformed  Church  rising  Mp"  among  them 
in  Charleston,  I  understood  them  distinctly  to  spurn  with  indignation,  as  a 
slanderous  miputation.  If  I  erred  in  this,  I  still  do  not  regret  the  judgment 
of  charity  which  exposed  me  to  it;  although  I  have  to  beg  the  pardon  of 
brethren,  far  and  near,  whom  I  may  have  led  into  a  similar  error,  by  re- 
peating the  assurances  which  had  been  given  to  myself. 

The  gentlemen  quote  parts  of  a  letter  which  I  addressed  to  two  of  their 
number  on  the  lilst  of  July  last,  in  answer  to  one  received  from  them.  At 
the  time  of  writing  my  answer,  I  was  unapprised  of  their  expulsion.  They 
had  requested  me  to  remove  the  Rev.  Wm.  M.  Kennedy  from  the  station. 
After  declining  to  comply  with  this  request,  for  reasons  given,  I  added  as 
follows: — "Is  there  not  some  better  course — some  preferable  alternative — 
painful  as  it  may  be?  I  confess  I  begin  to  fear,  that  with  your  existing  views 
and  feelings,  on  both  sides,  you  will  hardly  be  brought  to  harmonize,  a- 
greeably  to  our  earnest  desire,  under  one  pastoral  charge.  If  this  be  so, 
will  it  not  be  better — less  scandalous  in  the  public  eye,  and  more  in  the 
spirit  of  the  Gospel — to  agree  that  those  who  desire  it  shall  worship  to- 
gether under  a  distinct  Charge,  in  the  common  bond  of  the  same  general 
communion?  \s  a  temporary  measure  at  least,  till  your  next  Annual  Con- 
ference, perhaps  some  arrangement  of  this  sort  might  be  made,  if  «iesired  by 
any  considerable  portion  of  the  society,  without  taking  on  myself  to  decide 
definitively  the  questions  submitted  to  the  Episcopal  judgment.  In  this  case», 
however,  you  are  doubtless  aware  that  we  have  no  power  over  the  existing 
Church  propei'ty  inconsistent  with  the  trust-deeds  under  Avhicli  it  may  be 
held;  and  that  any  arrangement  for  the  occupation  of  any  part  of  it,  as  a 
distinct  charge,  if  etfected,  will  have  to  be  by  compromise.  But  should  you 
incline  to  think  it  practicable  and  expedient  to  acquire  any  new  Church 
property,  or  place  of  worship,  the  question  of  its  settlement  would  then  be 
less  embarrassed.  I  beg  you  however,  to  understand,  that  all  I  say  is  on 
the  supposition  tluit  you  will  adopt  no  course  which  shall  not  expressly  re- 
cognize our  discipline  and  economy;  as  I  have  always  understood  you,  and 
I  have  heVievcd  si nccreli/,  to  aver  and  declare  it  to  be  your  desire  and  design 
to  do.  Moderate  then,  I  beseech  you  brethren,  your  agitated  feelings — be 
jealous  of  your  spirit,  and  guard  your  language  with  godly  watchfulness — 
and  if  I  can  yet  serve  you,  in  any  wa}-  consistently  with  my  conscientious 
sense  of  duty,  be  pleased  to  let  me  know.  But  I  entreat  you  never  to  for- 
get,  that  whatever  else  you  may  gain,  if  you  lose  the  true  Christian  spirit, 
you  lose  all." 

This  extract  furnishes  the  true  groinids  of  my  action;  and  how  far  it 
justifies  the  statement,  that  in  the  course  the  gentlemen  have  taken,  they  go 
"in  company"  with  me,  you  can  judge. 

In  anotiicr  place,  (hey  "appeal  to  the  invitation  of  two  bishops  to  remain 
in  the  connexion,  with  the  privilege  of  procuring  an  act  of  incorporation  to 
suit  f  hem  selves.^'  If  this  appeal  be  intended  to  include  me,  1  disclaim  ever 
having  given  such  an  invitation.     So  also,  if  I  am   intended  as  one  of  the 

*  In  .1  wriuon  paper,  dated  Charleston,  Tcb.  4,  1834,  signed  W.  Laval,  VV.  G.  Mood, 
.T.  H.  Honour,  W.  Kirkwood,  W.  W.  Godfrey,  F.D.  Poyas,  F.  A.  Beckmann,  J.  King- 
luan,  and  O.  B.  llilliard,  llie  following  "sotciim  declaration''  is  made,  for  themselves, 
and  in  bciialf  of  those  by  wiiotii  they  were  elected,  viz: — "We  deprecate  the  charge  of 
"licformcrs,"  which  has  been  unjustly  and  sinfully  urged  against  us.  Our  declarations, 
with  our  actions,  are  proof:!  of  the  honesty  of  our  motives,  and  the  unfairness  of  our  ca- 
lumniator.'' 


18 

"Jwo  bishops"  wliosu  "high  autluirity"  is  alletlged  for  n  hat  they  hayedoiiCr 
I  protest  agauist  the  claim.  And  if  any  reterence  to  nic  is  meant  at  p.  3& 
of  the  Rejoinder,  I  disavow  having  ever  made  a  proposition,  that  if  they 
would  build  a  Churcli  at  their  omi  expense,  they  might  form  a  separate 
congregation,  asnd  procure  such  a  charter  as  they  might  approve,  with  the 
assurance  that  in  such  an  event,  I  would  make  it  a  separate  Chargc,^  and 
send  thera  a  Preacher  accordingly.  What  I  did  say,  in  reference  to  the 
temporary  measure,  at  least,  of  a  separate  Charge  till  the  ensuing  Annual 
Conference,  provided  notlnng  should  be  don«;  which  did  not  expressly  re- 
cognize our  discipline  and  economy,  suflicicntly  appears  from  the  extract  of 
my  letter  above  given, 

I  regret  exceedingly,  the  necessity  of  this  communication.  It  has  been 
written  in  interrupted  fragments  of  leisure.  But  if  I  have  omitted  any  thinjr 
iiuportant,  or  stated  any  thing  unfairly  to  either  side,  it  hiis  been  unin- 
tentionally. 

Very  affectionately,  &c. 

J.  EMORY. 

Near  Reisterstowu,  Md.  December  27,  1834. 


LETTER  OF  BISHOP  ANDREW 

To  the  Committee  appointed  to  publish  the  Report  and  Docnuients  on  tit 
late  Schism  in  Charleston^ 

Deak  Brethren, 

Sometime  in  the  month  of  October,  1833,  whifst  on  my  way  to  Horida. 
I  heard  it  rumored  that  serious  difficulties  had  arisen  in  the  Church  in 
Charleston;  the  particulars  of  which  I  never  learned  tilt  my  return  to  Au- 
gusta, in  December  following.  Shortly  after  my  return,  Dr.  Capers  visit- 
ed Augusta,  and  I  learned  from  him,  that  the  threatened  storm  was  proba- 
bly blown  over,  and  the  difficulties  which  had  troubled  the  Church,  were  in 
train  for  a  happy  settlement.  In  these  comtbrtablc  prospects  we  mutually 
rejoiced,  and  anticipatcidahappy  Conference,  and  prosperous  days  for  the 
Church  in  Charleston. 

Under  the  influence  of  these  feelings  and  hopes,  I  visited  the  city,  to  be 
present  for  a  part  of  the  time  of  the  session  of  the  Conference,  and  aid  as 
far  as  I  might  iu  promoting  peace  and  brotherly  love.  But  m  hut  was  my 
disappointment,  when,  on  reaching  Charleston,  I  learned  that  peace  and 
love  were  not,  but  that  the  war  of  bitterness  a!id  strife  was  renewed.  I 
conversed  freely  with  the  brethren  of  the  Corporation  party,  and  lamented 
the  state  of  the  Church.  They  also  expressed  regret.  They  assured  me 
they  loved  the  Church,  and  loved  her  Discipline,  and  would  do  nothing 
which  they  did  not  believe  was  in  accordance  with  it.  What  they  had 
done,  they  assured  me,  was  out  of  a  sacred  regard  for  the  interests  of  Me- 
thodism in  Charleston,  I  thought  them  honest  in  purpose,  though  mista- 
ken in  judgment,  and  misled  by  prejudice.  They  told  me  of  much  which, 
they  had  heard,  was  said  of  them;  and  I  replied,  I  doubted  i:ot  that  the  breach 
had  been  widened  by  persons  on  both  sides,  who  had  been  busy  in  tattling, 
imd  told  more  than  was  strictly  true. 

As  I  reached  Charleston  some  days  earlier  than  Bishop  Emory,  a  paper 
was  put  into  my  hands,  signed  by  several  of  the  leading  men  of  the  Corpo- 


raoion  party-  xequesiiog  an  cavly  interview  with  tlie  Bishop  and  myseSf ;  au6 
the  grand  reason  assigned  why  they  desired  such  an  iatrariew,  -was,  that 
they  might  disabuse  our  n^nds  of  any  'wrong  impression  under  which  we 
anight  have  labored  as  to  their  souiiduess  in  ihe  discipline  of  Methodism, 
This  1  uudcrstoou  to  be  The  purport  of  th^*  paper,  and  similar  w^s  their  Ian- 
^ifuagc,  when  tlic  irjterviow  took  place.  Mijoi  Laval,  who  seemed  to  te 
their  spokesman,  solomn'y  assured  up.  tliai  rhey  believed  thewiselves  borne 
•out  in  all  they  iiad  done  ty  the  DisripitJic,  or  otherwise  they  would  iiot'bave 
<lone  it — 'That  they  were  Methodists — That  tiiey  loved  the  DisciplineT  an4 
^voald  do  nothing  agaii>st  it — and  that  any  insinuation  of  their  heing  ■"xe- 
foroacrs"  was  a  vile  slander,  circulatod  by  their  enemies  to  injure  them,  I 
need  say  no  naore  of  this  intrvrview,  but  refer  you  to  Bishop  Emory's  letto* 
^o  brothers  Bass,  Kennedy,  and  Capers,  whicii  was  read  in  Conference. 

The  proposition,  to  settle  tho  legal  points  in  dispute,  by  making  up  an 
amicable  issue  at  court,  was  a  suffirestion  offline.  The  morning  after  the 
interview^  at  which  this  suggeaion  was  made,  I  had  to  leave  Charleston,  on 
any  way  to  tlie  Virginia  ConJereace.  That  morning,  I  called  for  a  few  mo- 
ments at  Bishop  Emory's  room,  and  suggested  to  kim,  if  it  might  be  proper 
to  propose  to  these  brothreii,  thai  they  might  form  a  separate  Congregation, 
under  such  an  act  of  incorporation  from  the  Legislature,  as  they  had  de- 
clared they  would  be  satisfied  «  ith,  and  which  sliould  distinctly  recc^nize 
our  economy,  and  be  conformed  to  our  DiscipUnc,  I  immediately  left 
Charleston,  and  the  matter  remained  with  ray  able  and  worthy  Colleague. 
This  being  the  case,  I  had  no  correspondence  with  any  one  on  the  subject, 
till  late  last  snnnmer;  when  I  received  a  letter  from  brother  Bass,  on  the  sub- 
ject  of  the  famous  Quarterly  Conference^  ahout  which  so  much  has  been 
said,  and  a  few  weeks  afterivards,  a  comrauuication  from  3Iessrs.  Laval. 
and  W.  G.  Mood,  purporting  to  be  a  copy  af  one  addressed  to  Bishop 
Emory.  In  this  communication,  after  an  aocount  of  the  Quarterly  Confer- 
ence, and  of  asubsequeirt  meeting  in  Trinity  Church,  they  urged,  as  the  on- 
ly means  of  saving  the  Church  in  Charleston,  the  immediatje  removal  of 
brother  Kenned}-  from  Charleston,  an<]  the  interdicting  broth»^r  Bass  from 
meddling  at  all  with  the  local  temporalities  of  the  Church  in  that  city.  To 
this  letter,  I  renUed  iis  the  language  which  was  read  to  the  Conference-  I 
will  only  add,  that  Bishop  Emory's  statements  in  his  letter  to  brother  Bas^ 
KeniMjdy,  and  Capers,  in  reference  to  what  transpired  during  my  stay  in 
Charleston,  are,  exactly  a^eeable  to  my  own  recollections  of  those  eventsi, 

JAMES  O.  ANDREW. 

Febraary  24,  1S35. 


Date 

Due 

SEP  4     '5 

L.B.  Cat.   No.  1137 


P.87.6     C477 


:3847 


jeJ 


D/- 


Duke  University  Library 

KEEP   THIS    SLIP   IN   THIS 

POCKET 

Form  336       15M        4-53 

This  book  does  not  circulate 

and  is  charged  for  use  in 

library  building  only 

RETURN   TO   CIRCULATION   DESK 


?.87.6     (t.477 


23847 


